February 26, 2017

Sample Party Program


It’s proven beyond any rational doubt that there’s no way forward within the framework of existing politics. Corporate rule dictates corporate politics, and that’s all that exists within the established political framework. This includes the Corporate One-Party system. The only way forward is to put in the hard work of building new social and cultural movements. I’ve dedicated my life to sowing the ideas for a movement dedicated to the abolition of corporate agriculture and the global transformation to agroecology and Food Sovereignty. Until these movements rise and become strong enough to nurture their own political parties dedicated to affirmative ideas, no new ideas can become real as a matter of political policy, because all existing institutions including both factions of the Corporate One-Party are committed to strangling all new ideas in the crib. In the meantime the only work dissidents could possibly do within the existing system is the obstruction work of monkey-wrenching and gridlocking, to prevent some of the evils attempted by existing corporate politics and help generate space for the extra-system movement.
So the great work of today and tomorrow, and perhaps the day after as well, is to build the new movement completely from outside the system. But for today there’s also potential for disciplined, targeted abolition work against pesticides and GMOs. Today I’ve written up a possible program for a political action group. The point here is to sum up and consolidate once and for all our own knowledge and philosophy, as well as offer some standards for public communication. In a previous piece I offered a strategic and tactical plan for such a group.
1. We know that every pesticide is genotoxic and an endocrine disruptor and therefore is carcinogenic and causes birth defects and reproductive problems. We know that every pesticide is broadly toxic to all animal groups including humans. We know all are harmful to bacteria and therefore to soil ecology and our microbiome. This list can be expanded. We know that each pesticide is highly toxic to us, to the soil, to the environment.
2. We know that one of the system’s scams is to say that even if it could be proven that “some” pesticide “possibly” had caused some kind of harm, one could never prove for sure which poison it was, or from exactly which source. Wherever the general lie that a pesticide isn’t toxic in the first place ceases to work, they move on to the next lie that you can’t pinpoint the cause – of a particular cancer, of exactly where that 2,4-D drift came from, etc. We’re seeing Monsanto use both tactics in its cancer lawsuits.
3. Therefore, to be willing to play along with the system game of trying to pinpoint each particular causality and each particular point source is both practically impossible and philosophically mistaken, since all the poisons from all the sources are contributing to the general epidemic of destruction.
(This is similar to the timidity of those who still hesitate to attribute extreme weather events to climate chaos. While it’s technically true that you can’t “prove” a particular hurricane or El Nino was driven by artificial climate change, we do know that the corporate system, including its political system, intentionally are driving the climate crisis as hard as they can, and we know that an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is one of the effects of climate change. Therefore it follows that the corporate system consents to and embraces each such event as an artificially caused manifestation of climate chaos. The system does this through its hellbent-for-leather actions to maximize greenhouse gas emissions, destroy all carbon sinks, and its exploitation of every weather-related disaster in order to increase its own profits and power. Corporate industrial agriculture is the worst driver of the climate crisis, which is why its abolition is a requirement if humanity is to avert the worst effects of climate chaos.)
4. So if I were founding an Anti-Poison Party, for the party platform I’d enshrine strict liability for the entire poison stream, from development to production to sales to use, for all effects of any poison. It’s the same principle as for any other criminal conspiracy: The guy driving the getaway car is just as guilty of murder as the robber inside the bank who pulls the trigger, even though he never left the car. As per (1), everyone knows how toxic all these chemicals are, and the corporations and regulators most of all, so no one can claim innocent ignorance. This would be a core Party principle and the Party promises to put this into effect wherever it gets the power.
5. This simplifies political education and campaigning, since there would no longer have to be squabbles over what’s most responsible for particular health harms, such as cancer, autism, celiac disease, and others which often seem overdetermined, to the point that people squabble over what’s “the” cause. Since Party members would agree in principle that any poison has a full share of the blame for each harm, political tactics would then be free to focus on what’s most strategically critical and politically effective. For example, a primary focus on glyphosate.
The basic principle underlying all of this is that the entire poison paradigm is a campaign of homicidal insanity which doesn’t work, serves no human purpose, has absolutely no legitimate reason to exist at all, does nothing but cause horrific harm to humanity and the Earth, and according to all reason and morality needs to be abolished completely. The strategic, tactical, and philosophical precepts I just listed follow from this rational and moral reality.
If you want to help spread these ideas, propagate these pieces.


  1. Hi Russ – I tried to post the following on your blog but it wouldn’t let me log in. Usually I can with just my name and email address but it said I wasn’t logged in as myself or some such nonsense. Anyway, here it is.

    Hi Russ. I put a link to this post into the comments section at Steve from Virginia’s blog at Economic Undertow http://economic-undertow.com/ I think one of out biggest problems is that all of the words that would be used to describe what a new party would be called and would do are negative or associated with movements that have been rejected by corporate advertising in the past: degrowth, luddite, agrarian, peasant etc. It is so bad that Chris Martenson has to call his site “Peak Prosperity” and we have names like “Resilience.org. Even the Green Party has negative connotations. That is what the corporate advertising machine does to anyone who starts to attract a following. But I agree with you – get a party platform and then come up with a name. What do you think of the Green Party platform, by the way? I have never read it but I hear there is some good stuff in there.

    Comment by farmappraiser — February 26, 2017 @ 8:31 am

    • Thanks for posting the link. I’m not sure what you mean by logging in. I have it set not to require logging in, though some people do through WordPress or whatever.

      I agree completely about always using affirmative, optimistic language. I too don’t understand people who are claiming to want action but who speak pessimistically (except for some obvious trolls who are really trying to sow demoralization).

      I don’t mind the name Resilience (in fact that’s one of the places on my list to start submitting posts), but “Peak Prosperity” is a peculiar name. I wouldn’t call Western-style consumerism “prosperity” in the first place (nor do even the rich seem to be happy and psychologically prosperous), and at any rate it’s only the artificial scarcity imposed by Mammon which thwarts general prosperity, not any kind of physical resource limit.

      I think alleged alternatives like the Greens offer no real alternative. I looked at their platform and found it to be pleasant-sounding boilerplate with almost no clear promise or goal. For example, I specifically wanted to see what they were promising with regard to the TPP, NAFTA etc. I wasn’t surprised to find they weren’t promising to tear those up if they ever had the power, but merely expressed vaguely negative opinions about them.

      At any rate they’re dedicated to doing “good” work within the system. But this is impossible. In practice, if Greens ever did attain office and really attempted reform they’d end up endlessly “compromising” in order to “work within the system” and become nothing but the Democrats all over again. That’s why it’s necessary first to build a coherent movement against the system, and only then build an anti-system political party out of that. Until then any within-the-system action can aspire only to obstruction, negation, delay.

      Ironically, I think it’s Sanders and Green supporters who are most obviously supporters of the status quo, albeit as “constructive critics”. It’s possible to conform abjectly without really supporting the status quo. But by definition a constructive critic of something has to be a supporter, at least to some extent.

      Comment by Russ — February 26, 2017 @ 9:42 am

  2. Russ:

    Here, in Western Oregon, state law and forest management regulations (The Oregon Forest Practices Act) permit the aerial (helicopter) application of a suite of powerful herbicides onto the large and numerous private land clear cuts that are so ubiquitous in the Oregon Coast Range and on the West Slope of the Cascade Range. These herbicides include but are not limited to: glyphosate, imazapyr, atrazene, 2,4-D et al. and their ancillary chemicals. They are applied sometimes before replanting, sometimes after replanting, occasionally more often. Sometimes, they are mixed into unstudied “witches brews,” which, by the admission of state agencies, have unknown synergistic effects

    A good deal of the vast forest acreage in Western Oregon is owned by investor groups organized as Real estate Investment Trusts (REITs) and Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs). Streams in the affected watersheds are very poorly buffered on private, as opposed to public, lands. Drift and over spray are not uncommon, nor runoff in the typical rainy weather here. There are few to no formal buffers around homes or schools, although individual operators may observe them on their own. There is little to no testing of the short or long term effects, on life forms, of this very large scale aerial application of herbicides over so many watersheds, although the harmful effects of 2,4-D and atrazene (banned in the E.U. and Switzerland, home base for Syngenta, who, I believe, is its patent holder) are known and acknowledged by scientific study. Despite p.r. to the contrary, Oregon Government at every level remains in the grip of industrial timber, very like big coal in Appalachia. Private industrial timberlands operate on a financial forestry model, where regrowth of stands into older forests is not allowed. Rather, they are most often clear cut over again at anywhere from 35 to 60 years, over against the 100 to 800 yr. old or older forests they replaced. Damage to ecosystems is chronic and severe.

    Federal forestlands (BLM & USFS) do not allow application of herbicides to promote conifer growth. They are only used to counter invasive plant species and are never applied to federal lands by aircraft. Large clear cuts on these public lands came to a gradual but decisive halt in the early 1990’s, following adoption of the landmark Northwest Forest Plan. In the decades from 1963 to 1993 many billions of board feet over many thousands of acres were felled on Federal holdings in Oregon, either via clear cut or patch cuts. This “great falling” amounted to the liquidation of the concentrated wealth of centuries, our common public inheritance, in many, many cases. Anadromous fish runs were decimated or rendered extinct. Terrestrial species dependent on these very old forests were listed as threatened with extinction. There are more and just as serious environmental and social ramifications, including carbon sequestration/mitigation, employment, local government funding, et al. Suffice it to say that we, as a society, vis a vis this awesome natural ecosystem have painted ourselves into a very small management corner. Needless to say, the environmentalists delivering the necessary ecological jeremiads, are often blamed for this dire situation, while renewed, greatly increased timber extraction from federal forest lands is pronounced the ultimate solution. Many doubt our ability to paint ourselves out of this corner.


    Comment by Joseph Patrick Quinn — February 26, 2017 @ 11:53 am

    • Thanks for the review Joseph. I’ve read some of the history of herbicide use in the Northwestern forests and how it’s caused ecological disaster and communities ravaged by birth defects and cancer.

      All for nothing that anyone could claim is a necessary or constructive purpose, but purely to destroy. The gangsters who get rich and powerful off it don’t even enjoy being rich and powerful, as evidenced by how no amount is ever enough, nor could anyone ever find a use for such wealth and power. So even profit and power is not the real goal, but itself a proxy goal. The real goal is destruction for the sake of destruction.

      Comment by Russ — February 27, 2017 @ 8:23 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: